Research and Development

Transcription

United States
E n v i r o n m e n t a l P ro t e c t i o n
Agency
EPA/600/R-00/100
November 2000
Research and
Development
LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE OF
EPA-CERTIFIED PHASE 2 WOODSTOVES,
KLAMATH FALLS AND PORTLAND
OREGON: 1998-1999
Prepared for
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Prepared by
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
FOREWORD
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks
from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources, protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and-groundwater; and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic longterm research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
EPA-600 / R- 00-100
November 2000
Long - Term Performance of EPA-Certified Phase 2 Woodstoves,
Klamath Falls and Portland, Oregon: 1998/1999
Prepared by:
Lawrence H. Fisher,
James E. Houck, and Paul E. Tiegs
OMNI Environmental Services, Inc.
5465 SW Western Avenue, Suite G
Beaverton, OR 97005
and
James McGaughey
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
900 Perimeter Park
Morrisville, NC 27560
EPA Contract 68-D7-0001, WA 2-04
EPA Project Officer: Robert C. McCrillis
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and
Development funded and managed the research described here under Contract No. 68-D7-0001
to Eastern Research Group, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative
review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
Executive Summary
Woodstoves have been identified as a major source of particulate and polycyclic organic
matter (POM) emissions. For this reason, new source performance standards (NSPS) were
promulgated for wood heaters. Wood heaters sold after July 1, 1992, had to be certified for low
emissions, meet the most stringent requirements of the NSPS, and are referred to as Phase 2
certified. Of concern has been the fact that laboratory and field studies have shown that certified
wood heaters can physically degrade with use and their air emissions commensurately increase.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the condition and air emissions from old
phase 2 certified wood heaters installed in homes and used regularly for home heating since the
1992/1993 heating season or earlier. Study stoves were inspected and their conditions were
documented. Particulate and POM samples were collected from the stoves during normal inhome use with an automated woodstove emission sampler (AWES). The AWES was developed
specifically for the in-home collection of air emission samples from residential wood burning
appliances and data developed from its use have previously been used to calculate particulate
emission factors published in AP-42. In addition to data obtained from the use of the AWES,
ancillary information such as the history of each woodstove, installation characteristics and
cordwood properties were compiled for the study.
Sixteen stoves were evaluated in the study, eight in Klamath Falls, Oregon, and eight in
Portland, Oregon. All 16 stoves showed the effects of use. However, only six were degraded to
the point that it was speculated that their condition would significantly affect air emissions.
An extensive data base from 43 week-long test runs was developed. No direct statistical
correlation between emissions and wood moisture, burn rate or the conditions of the stoves could
be made due to the number of variables associated with the real-world in-home use of
woodstoves. However, the particulate emissions for stoves in homes in Portland were on the
average higher than for stoves in homes in Klamath Falls. This result is consistent with the
average higher fuel moisture content and burn rate characteristic of the Portland portion of the
study as compared to the Klamath Falls portion.
The particulate emission factors of the certified Phase 2 stoves evaluated in this study
appear to have increased with use, but on the average, after about seven years they still have
lower emissions than uncertified conventional stoves. In addition, it was clear from the results
that the emission rates for Phase 2 stove models reported as part of the NSPS certification
process do not represent emission levels of same stove models inhomes after extended use.
iii
The data demonstrate that particulate emissions can not be used as a surrogate
measurement for POM emissions of woodstoves. Further, POM emission factors, as based on
the 7-PAH and 16-PAH values, determined from the in-home use of woodstoves in this study
were lower than the POM emission factors previously published in AP-42. This observation is
significant because the AP-42 emission factors are the basis for the national emission inventory
of POM for which residential wood combustion was identified as the single largest source.
iv
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Section 1.0
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 2.0
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Woodstoves, Fuel, and Ambient Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 Field Measurements, Laboratory Support, and Data Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Section 3.0
Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1 Condition of Stoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2 Particulate Matter Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Polycyclic Organic Matter Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Section 4.0
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Section 5.0
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Section 6.0
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Appendix A
Photographs of Woodstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Appendix B
Quality Assurance History — Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler . . . . B-1
Appendix C
Summary of Automated Emissions Sampler Data by Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Appendix D
Organic Compound Analysis Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
v
List of Tables
Table
Page
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
Home Code, Model, and Chimney Characteristics for Klamath Falls Woodstoves . . . . . 6 Home Code, Model, and Chimney Characteristics for Portland Woodstoves . . . . . . . . . . 7 Wood Data for Klamath Falls Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Wood Data for Portland Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Principal Field and Laboratory Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Derived Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7-PAH and 16-PAH Surrogates for POM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
Home Code, Model, and Condition for Klamath Falls Woodstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Home Code, Model, and Condition for Portland Woodstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Individual Test Results for Klamath Falls Stoves KF01 – KF04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Individual Test Results for Klamath Falls Stoves KF05 – KF08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Individual Test Results for Portland Stoves P01 – P04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Individual Test Results for Portland Stoves P05 – P08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Average Fuel Moisture, Particulate Emissions, Burn Rate, and Outdoor Temperature for
Stoves in Klamath Falls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Average Fuel Moisture, Particulate Emissions, Burn Rate, and Outdoor Temperature for
Stoves in Portland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Summary of Particulate Emission Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Comparison of Average Particulate Emission Factors (5H Adjusted) to AP-42 Values . 44
Comparison of Particulate Emission Factors of Stoves in Current Study
to Particulate Emission Factors for the Same Stoves from Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . 45
Comparison of Stove Particulate Emission Rates to U.S. EPA Certification Values . . . 46
Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates For Stoves in Klamath Falls Homes . 48
Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates for Stoves in Portland Homes . . . . . . 50
Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates for Overall Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Comparison of POM Emission Factors for Stoves in Current Study
to AP-42 POM Emission Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
vi
List of Figures
Figure
2-1
2-2
Page
Schematic Diagram of the Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Flow Chart Summarizing Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
vii
Section 1.0
Introduction
Residential wood combustion (RWC) has been identified as a major source of particulate
matter (PM) and polycyclic organic matter (POM) air emissions. During 1997, RWC contributed
an estimated 12% of the sum of the total PM10 emissions attributed to all fuel combustion,
industrial process, and transportation sources combined (1). RWC was also identified as the
largest single source of POM during 1990 (2). Approximately 72% of the cordwood burned
annually in the United States in the category of residential wood combustion is in
woodstoves (2). (The remaining 28% is mostly burned in fireplaces.) There were an estimated
9.3 million woodstoves in homes during the 1997-1998 heating season (3).
Due to the level of emissions attributed to woodstoves, standards of performance were
promulgated for new residential wood heaters (4). All wood heaters sold after July 1, 1992, have
to meet the most stringent Phase 2 particulate emission limits of the standards. These standards
were 4.1 gram per hour for catalytic stoves and 7.5 grams per hour for non-catalytic stoves. The
limits for catalytic stoves were set lower than non-catalytic stoves since the presumed
deterioration of the catalyst over time was estimated to result in emissions from catalytic wood
heaters over their useful lifetimes approximately equal to non-catalyic wood heaters.
Furthermore, there has been concern about the overall physical deterioration of wood
stoves with use and the commensurate increase in air emissions. This concern has been
confirmed in both laboratory (5,6) and in-home studies (7-9). Physical degradation coupled with
higher PM emissions has been documented for some stoves. Not only are accurate airshed
inventories of PM and POM fundamentally important for health and environmental assessments,
state and local agencies in areas of PM10 nonattainment have been directed to take performance
degradation into consideration in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) when calculating
credits from replacing non-certified stoves with certified stoves (10). The replacement of noncertified stoves with Phase 2 certified stoves remains a viable option for reducing airshed
pollutant levels and obtaining PM10 SIP credits because, as of 1997, more than 80% of the
woodstoves in use were still older non-certified units (11). In addition, because over 90% of the
PM10 emissions from residential wood combustion are also PM2.5, emission credits may be very
important for possible future PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
The primary objective of the study was to select Phase 2 stoves that were installed in
homes prior to the fall of 1992 in order to assess the level of long-term degradation and potential
1
increase in PM and POM air emissions of older Phase 2 certified stoves under actual in-home
usage. Woodstoves in homes in both Portland, Oregon, and Klamath Falls, Oregon, were
selected because Portland is in U.S. climate zone three and Klamath Falls is in U.S. climate zone
two. The average heating degree day (HDD) value for Portland is 4109 and the average HDD for
Klamath Falls is 6600. The intent behind the selection of stoves in the two climatologically
dissimilar cities was to produce results more widely applicable to woodstove usage in the nation
as a whole than if homes in a single city were selected. In addition, nine Phase 2 stoves installed
in homes in Klamath Falls were previously studied during the 1989-1990 and 1991-1992 heating
seasons (8,12,13). Therefore, a secondary objective of the study was to utilize as many of these
homes as possible in the current study to help document phase 2 stove degradation and
commensurate emission increase.
Sixteen homes were targeted for study during the 1998-1999 heating season. Two in the
study group were homes in Klamath Falls that had phase 2 woodstoves that were part of the
earlier studies. Emission samples were collected for three one-week periods from woodstoves in
each home using the Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES) previously developed by
OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for similar studies. Samples collected with the AWES were
analyzed for particulate matter and organic compounds. The specific organic compounds
analyzed included the seven and sixteen POM compounds needed to calculate the 7-PAH and
16-PAH values, respectively, which are used as surrogate indicators for POM. The PM and
POM surrogate emission factors (mass of pollutant emissions per unit mass of fuel) were
compared against their emission factors tabulated in AP-42 for woodstoves (14). The PM
emission rates (mass of pollutant emissions per time of stove operation) measured under actual
in-home use for each woodstove model were compared against their certified emission values
listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (15). The PM emissions from this study and
from the previous studies were compared for the stoves in the Klamath Falls homes that were
part of earlier studies. Cordwood tree species, cordwood moisture, the amount of cordwood
burned, burn rates, ambient temperature during testing, a description of woodstove use in each
home, chimney characteristics, and the condition of the stoves were also documented as part of
the study. Photographs of each stove’s installation and components that showed degradation
have been included as Appendix A.
2
Section 2.0
Methodology
The basis of the study was the use of the AWES for sample and data collection. A
description of the AWES is provided in Section 2.1. Woodstove selection and inspection and
cordwood characterization are discussed in Section 2.2. Details of the field sampling program,
supporting laboratory procedures and data reduction are provided in Section 2.3.
2.1 Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler
The AWES was developed to quantify emissions of particles for residential wood burning
appliances while they are in normal in-home use. It is small in size and operates unattended in
home settings. Due to the temporal variability in emissions from wood burning appliances, the
AWES is also designed to collect long-term integrated samples necessary to provide mean
values. Studies conducted with the AWES have provided the majority of the data base used for
particulate emission factors development by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
residential wood combustion (14). The AWES has been used to quantify emissions from
woodstoves, masonry heaters, pellet stoves, and fireplaces (5-8,12,13,16-36). Due to its extensive
use, the AWES has undergone U.S. Environmental Protection Agency supported quality
assurance evaluations during the period 1986 to 1992 (Appendix B).
A schematic diagram of the AWES is shown in Figure 2-1. Detailed descriptions of its
principles of operation, supporting laboratory requirements, calibration, associated data reduction
and uncertainty estimates have been published in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
U.S. Department of Energy reports (16,19) and quality assurance plans (Appendix B).
For sampling purposes, the AWES is placed adjacent to the wood-burning appliance in study
homes. For woodstove applications, a stainless steel inlet probe is typically attached to the
chimney (stove pipe) 30 cm above the flue collar of the stove. Sample is withdrawn at a rate of
approximately one liter per minute. The flow rate is maintained by a calibrated orifice.
Particulate samples, including condensible particles, are captured with a heated filter followed by
an XAD-2® resin cartridge. All interconnecting tubing, holders and hardware exposed to the
sample are made either of stainless steel or Teflon® to maintain sample integrity. After sample
collection, the chimney gas is passed through silica gel to protect downstream components from
condensate. The oxygen content of the chimney gas is measured with an electrochemical cell.
3
Figure 2-1
Schematic Diagram of the Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler
4
The sample flow is then returned to the wood-burning appliance chimney above the point where
the sample was withdrawn. Room temperature and chimney gas temperature are measured with
type K thermocouples. The chimney gas temperature is measured within the chimney at the same
location as the sample is withdrawn.
A key component of the AWES is the data logging system. The system records date, time,
oxygen content, room temperature, and chimney gas temperature at regular intervals. The oxygen
content of the chimney gas, along with the mass of wood burned, allows for the estimation of
total chimney gas flow during sampling which is needed for the subsequent calculation of
emission rates and emission factors. The record of chimney gas temperatures allows for the total
time of appliance operation over the course of the sampling duration to be determined. In
addition to data recording, the system is programed to control the sampling frequency, sampling
duration and sampling period. For this study, the AWES was programed to sample for two
minutes once every 15 minutes for one week. The system is further programed to turn the
sampling pump on during the programmed two minute sampling time only if the woodstove is in
operation as determined by the chimney temperature in order to avoid collection of sample
material when the appliance is not in operation. A threshold chimney temperature of 100oF
(38oC) was used as an indicator of woodstove operation.
2.2 Woodstoves, Fuel, and Ambient Temperature
A total of 16 woodstoves, eight in Klamath Falls and eight in Portland, were targeted for
study. One home in Klamath Falls was dropped from the study after one week due to a family
crisis. An additional home was added to the study in Portland to replace the dropped home. Out
of the nine possible phase 2 certified woodstoves that were part of previous studies in Klamath
Falls two were included in this study. An attempt was made to include the other seven in the
current study but it was not possible either due to stove replacement since the last studies or an
unwillingness of the current home occupants to participate in this study. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 list
the home codes, woodstove models, and chimney characteristics for all installations. The
chimney characteristics were documented because draft and commensurate fire intensity which is
affected by chimney height have been implicated in the degradation of woodstove components.
A photograph of each stove was taken to illustrate its installation (Appendix A).
5
Table 2-1
Home Code, Model, and Chimney Characteristics for Klamath Falls Woodstoves
Home Code
Stove Modela
Chimney Characteristics
Quadrafire
2100
Non-Catalytic
8 Foot Vertical Rise
KF01
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
Haughs
171E
Non-Catalytic
Earthstove
1003C
Catalytic
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
Waterford
104 MKII
Non-Catalytic
Earthstove
1400HT
Non-Catalytic
Country
T-Top
Non-Catalytic
KF02b
KF03c
KF04
KF05
KF06
KF07
KF08
a
Single Story Home
Two Story A-Frame
Two Story Home
Single Story Home
Single Story Home
Two Story Home
Single Story Home
Two Story A-Frame
All stoves were installed prior to the 1992/1993 heating season.
b
Stove in home KF02 in this study was referred to as Home 3 or CK03 in the 1990 Energy, Mines
and Resources Canada (EMRC) Study(13).
c
Stove designated as KF03 in this study was referred to as H-5 or WK05 in the 1990 Wood
Heating Alliance (WHA) Study(12). Additionally, this stove was referred to as KF04 in the 1992
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) study(8).
6
Table 2-2
Home Code, Model, and Chimney Characteristics for Portland Woodstoves
Home
Code
P01
P02
P03
P04
P05
P06
P07
P08
Stovea
Chimney/House
Trailblazer
Genesis 2000
Catalytic
Single Story Manufactured Home
Lopi
Answer Series
Non-Catalytic
Lopi
380-96
Non-Catalytic
Single Story Home
Single Story Manufactured Home
Lopi
Flush Bay-96b
Catalytic
Lopi
Flex-95
Catalytic
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
Lopi
520-96
Non-Catalytic
Vermont Castings
Defiant Encoredc
Catalytic
Two Story Home
Two Story Home
Single Story Home
Single Story Home
Two Story Home
a
b
Lopi Flush Bay-96 is now called Freedom.
c
The Vermont Castings Defiant Encore stove was installed when stove was EPA Phase I certified.
Since the installation, the stove has been added to EPA Phase II certification list without changes
to the stove’s design.
7
Each stove was inspected and the home occupants were interviewed regarding its
historical and current usage. A description was made and photographs were taken of any
components that showed degradation (Appendix A).
Participants in the study were either provided with, or reimbursed for the cost of locally
available cordwood fuel. Fuel moisture was measured with a Delmhorst moisture meter. If the
meter indicated that the wood moisture was greater than 30% (dry basis), the moisture content
was determined through drying/gravimetric analysis in the laboratory. Average fuel moisture by
week and by home was based on measurements on approximately 10% of the cordwood fuel
pieces. Pre-weighed bundles of wood were provided to the occupants of each home prior to each
week of sampling. A portable spring scale was used to measure the wood weight. The unused
pieces of each bundle were weighed at the end of the sampling week. The amount of wood
burned during the week-long tests was calculated by adding the weights of the bundles used
(including the weight of wood used in the partly consumed bundles).
Wood Data for Klamath Falls are compiled in Table 2-3. Wood Data for Portland are
compiled in Table 2-4. Lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, juniper and Douglas fir cordwood was
used in the Klamath Falls appliances. Douglas fir, maple, alder, oak, birch, lodgepole pine and
cherry cordwood was used in the Portland appliances. The mass burned, percentage of the wood
burned, and moisture content of cordwood by species in each home during each sampling week
are shown in Tables 2-3 and 2-4. The average wood moisture by cordwood tree species ranged
from 9.8% to 26.8% on a dry basis (9.0% to 21.1% on a wet basis) for Klamath Falls and from
18.1% to 112.1% on a dry basis (15.3% to 52.8% on a wet basis) for Portland.
The elemental composition (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen) was determined for
each species of wood by proximate/ultimate analysis (ASTM D3178). Elemental data were used
to calculate the stoichiometric volume of gas produced from a given mass of wood burned during
sampling which is, in turn, were used in conjunction with AWES oxygen measurements to
estimate the total chimney gas flow.
Average outdoor temperatures were calculated for each sampling week as an indicator of
heating demand. The average values were calculated from the daily average temperatures
recorded at nearby weather stations for Klamath Falls (37) and Portland (38). The recorded daily
average temperatures were simply the average of the daily high and low temperatures in each
location.
2.3 Field Measurements, Laboratory Support, and Data Reduction
The principal field and laboratory measurements with associated uncertainties used to
calculate the emission and ancillary results are listed in Table 2-5. Fuel measurements as
discussed in Section 2.2, infield measurements made by the AWES, laboratory measurements
made on the collected samples, and measurements associated with AWES calibration are
included in this table.
8
Table 2-3
Wood Data for Klamath Falls Homes
Home Code
KF01
KF02
Sampling
Week
Mass Burned
(Wet lbs)
Species
% Species
Moisture
% (Dry Basis)
A
296.3
Lodgepole
100
20.2
B
319.4
Lodgepole
100
24.5
C
170.3
Ponderosa
100
31.4
A
432.7
Ponderosa
100
20.8
B
457.3
Ponderosa
100
21.5
C
313.8
Ponderosa
100
19.6
280.0
Lodgepole
95
14.6
14.7
Juniper
5
13.2
346.9
Lodgepole
95
18.8
18.3
Juniper
5
18.3
203.0
Lodgepole
50
21.8
203.0
Douglas Fir
50
21.4
B
467.0
Lodgepole
100
19.5
A
303.2
Juniper
100
10.4
B
155.7
Juniper
100
9.8
C
379.3
Juniper
100
11.3
A
277.5
Lodgepole
100
11.7
A
349.2
Lodgepole
100
12.6
B
294.5
Lodgepole
100
11.7
C
496.5
Lodgepole
100
15.8
A
525.1
Ponderosa
100
26.8
B
522.1
Ponderosa
100
25.4
C
567.6
Ponderosa
100
15.7
B
KF03a
C
A
KF04a
KF05
KF06a
KF07
KF08
a
There are no data for week A for KF03 and week C for KF04 due to loss of sample and/or laboratory
data. There are no data for weeks B and C for KF06 due to death in the family.
9
Table 2-4
Wood Data for Portland Homes
Home Code
P01
Sampling
Week
Mass Burned
(Wet lbs)
Species
% Species
Moisture
% (Dry Basis)a
A
573.1
Douglas Fir
100
24.0
B
557.1
Douglas Fir
100
21.0
C
570.3
Douglas Fir
100
22.8
51.8
Maple
20
105.3
13.0
Douglas Fir
5
36.4
194.3
Alder
75
106.6
227.5
Oak
100
18.5
110.1
Douglas Fir
50
35.4
110.1
Oak
50
19.1
A
71.6
Douglas Fir
100
18.3
B
160.4
Douglas Fir
100
18.3
94.0
Douglas Fir
50
19.8
94.0
Birch
50
27.0
A
184.1
Oak
100
18.3
B
286.3
Oak
100
18.5
C
200.7
Oak
100
18.4
53.5
Lodgepole
50
20.6
53.5
Cherry
50
18.1
36.0
Lodgepole
50
19.8
36.0
Cherry
50
18.2
42.0
Lodgepole
50
19.3
42.0
Cherry
50
18.8
A
P02
B
C
P03
C
P04
A
P05
B
C
(Continued)
a
See equation 6.
10
Table 2-4 (continued)
Wood Data for Portland Homes
Home Code
Sampling
Week
A
P06
B
C
A
P07
B
C
Mass Burned
(Wet lbs)
Species
% Species
Moisture
% (Dry Basis)a
181.7
Maple
20
105.3
48.4
Douglas Fir
5
36.4
678.4
Alder
75
106.6
164.4
Maple
20
104.2
41.1
Douglas Fir
5
38
616.3
Alder
75
112.1
155.0
Maple
20
101.1
38.7
Douglas Fir
5
35.4
581.1
Alder
75
107.9
214.6
Maple
20
105.3
53.7
Douglas Fir
5
36.4
804.9
Alder
75
106.6
227.9
Maple
20
104.2
57.0
Douglas Fir
5
38
854.7
Alder
75
112.1
894.4
Douglas Fir
100
24.8
46.7
Douglas Fir
10
21.8
419.9
Oak
90
25.1
16.8
Douglas Fir
10
21.9
151.1
Oak
90
25.4
A
P08b
B
a
See equation 6.
b
There are no data for week C for P08 due to loss of sample data.
11
Table 2-5
Principal Field and Laboratory Measurements
Units
Method of Determination
Estimated
Precision
Estimated
Accuracy
kg
Spring Scale
+ 0.1%
+ 0.1%
ASTM D2016 ( >30%)
+ 10%
+ 5%
Delmhorst Model RC Moisture Meter ( <30%)
+ 1%
Absolute
+ 1%
Absolute
% by Mass
ASTM D3178
+ 1%
Absolute
+ 1%
Absolute
4. Mass of Particles Collected on Filter
mg
Analytical Balance
+ 0.3%
+ 0.3%
5. Mass of Particles Collected in Probe and
Connecting Tubing
mg
Removal/Solvent Evaporation/Analytical Balance
+ 0.3%
+ 0.3%
6. Mass of Semi-Volatiles Collected on XAD-2®
mg
Extraction/Solvent Evaporation/Analytical
Balance
+ 0.3%
+ 0.3%
l/min
Bubble Flow Meter/Digital Timer
+ 3%
+ 2%
Parameters
1. Wood Fuel Weight
2. Wood Fuel Moisture
12
3. C, O, N, H Composition of Wood
7. Sample Flow Rate
% by Mass
(Dry Basis)
(Continued)
Principal Field and Laboratory Measurements
Estimated
Precision
Estimated
Accuracy
AWES/Electrochemical Sensor
+ 0.8%
absolute
+ 0.8% Absolute
in. Hg
Mercury Barometer
+ 0.5 mm
Hg
+ 0.5 mm Hg
min
Data Logger Internal Clock
+ 0.1%
+ 0.1%
F
Type K Thermocouple
+ 4 oF or
+ 0.75%
(Whichever
is Greatest)
+ 4 oF or
+ 0.75%
(Whichever
is Greatest)
12. Sampling Period
min
Data Logger Internal Clock
+ 0.1%
+ 0.1%
13. POM Compounds Contained in
Particles
µg
EPA SW-846 Method 8270C
+ 20%
+ 20%
14. POM Compounds Contained in
Vapor Phase
µg
EPA SW-846 Method 8270C
+ 20%
+ 20%
Parameters
8. Chimney Gas O2
9. Mean Barometric Pressure (for Flow
Calibration)
10. Duration of Sampling
13
11. Temperature (Chimney, Ambient)
Units
% by Volume
o
Laboratory measurements were made on three AWES sample components:
1. The probe and interconnecting tubing;
2. The heated filter; and
3. The XAD-2® resin cartridge.
For this study since both PM and POM surrogates were measured, the sample material
was split into two portions for analysis. Figure 2-2 is a flow chart summarizing the analysis
procedures. The sample probe and tubing connecting the probe to the heated filter were rinsed
with a 50/50 mixture of methylene chloride and methanol. A stainless steel wire brush was used
to remove material from the sample probe prior to the 50/50 methylene chloride/methanol
mixture rinse. Both the removed material and solvent rinse were collected in a single beaker.
One half of the mixture was taken to dryness and weighed to calculate its PM content. One half
was combined with the XAD-2® extract and reduced to 5 mL volume for organic compound
analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (SW-846 Method 8270C).
The pre-weighed filter was placed in a desiccator until a constant weight was achieved.
The difference between pre-and post-weights allowed for the mass of particles collected on the
filter to be determined. The filter was spiked and then extracted with methylene chloride,
reduced in volume to 5 mL and analyzed for organic compounds by SW-846 Method 8270C.
Surrogates and matrix spikes were added to the XAD-2® resin cartridge for the POM
determination. The resin was then extracted with a Soxhlet extractor using methylene chloride.
One half of the extract was evaporated to dryness for mass (PM) determination and one half was
added to the probe and interconnecting tubing rinse for organic compound analysis by SW 846
Method 8270C.
The masses of PM and POM surrogates contained in each of the three components were
added to obtain the total mass captured with the AWES system.
Table 2-6 lists the intermediate and final parameters derived from the field and laboratory
measurements. Except for the POM compound emission factors and rates (items 10 and 11 in
Table 2-6), the precision and accuracy uncertainties for the intermediate and final derived
parameters were determined from the estimated uncertainties of the principal field and laboratory
measurements shown in Table 2.5 following standard propagation of error procedures (16,19).
The uncertainties for the POM compound emission factors and rates shown in Table 2-6 were
estimated from data from similar studies (23,25,39,40).
14
Figure 2-2
Flow Chart Summarizing Analysis Procedures
15
Table 2-6
Derived Parameters
Estimated
Precision
Estimated
Accuracy
AWES Data Logger
System/Lab Support
+ 0.08
+ 5%
g/kg
(Dry)
AWES Data Logger
System/Lab Support
+ 16%
+ 17%
g/hr
AWES Data Logger
System/Lab Support
+ 20%
+ 18%
4. Dry Mass of Wood Burned
kg
Fuel Scale
+ 0.1%
+ 0.1%
5. Percent of Time Stove in
Operation
%
Type K Thermocouple/Data
Logger
+ 3%
+ 3%
<30% – Delmhorst Moisture
Meter
< + 2%
Absolute
< + 2%
Absolute
>30% – Gravimetric Analysis
+ 4%
+ 2%
Fuel Scale/Data Logger
+ 0.1%
+ 0.1%
Electrochemical Sensor/Data
Logger
+ 0.3%
Absolute
+ 0.69%
Absolute
Uncorrected
+ 0.2%
Absolute
Corrected
F
Type K Thermocouple/Data
Logger
+ 4 oF or
+ 0.75%
(Whichever
is Greatest)
+ 4 oF or
+ 0.75%
(Whichever
is Greatest)
10. Mass of POM
Compounds/Mass Dry Wood
Burned
µg/kg
(Dry)
AWES Data Logging System/
Lab Support
+ 50%
+ 50%
11. Mass of POM
Compounds/Time of Stove
Operation
µg/kg
(Dry)
AWES Data Logging System/
Lab Support
+ 50%
+ 50%
Parameters
Units
1. Mass Particles/Volume of
Chimney Gas
g/m3
2.Mass Particles/Mass Dry
Wood Burned
3. Mass Particles/Time of Stove
Operation
6. Mean Fuel Moisture by
Species
% (Dry
Basis)
7. Mean Wood Burn Rate
kg/hr
(Dry)
8. Mean Chimney Gas Oxygen
Concentration
9. Mean Chimney Gas
Temperature
% by
Volume
o
16
The following formulas were used to calculate the derived parameters listed in Table 2-6.
(M P )
( F R )(S D )
Mass of particles/volume of chimney gas =
(1)
where:
MP
=
FR
SD
=
=
Mass of particles collected by the AWES (sum of the particles collected on
the probe and interconnecting tubing, on the filter, and on the XAD-2®
resin)
Flow rate of the AWES, and
Sampling duration of the AWES.
( M P )(S V )
( F R )(S D )(1 − [% O 2 2 0 .9 % ])
Mass of particles/mass dry wood burned =
(2)
where:
Mass particulate emissions (MP)
=
Total chimney gas volume (TF)
=
SV
=
(M P )
(T F )
( F R )(S D )
(S V )( M D W )
%O2 

1 −


2 0 .9 % 
Volume of chimney gas per unit mass of dry wood from the stoichiometric
combustion of wood, obtained from proximate/ultimate analysis data and a
small correction for carbon monoxide levels characteristic of EPAcertified Phase 2 woodstove emissions,
MDW =
Mass of dry wood burned during sampling (see equation 4), and,
%O2
Percent of oxygen in chimney gas measured with the AWES.
=
17
Mass particulate emissions/time of stove operations =
( M P )(S V )( M D W )(1 0 0 )
( F R )(S D )(S P )(W O )(1 − [% O 2 2 0 .9 % ])
(3)
where:
SP
=
Sampling period (usually one week), and,
WO
=
Percent of time stove in operation (see equation 6).
n
Dry mass of wood burned =
 MWW 
∑ X  1 + M D C 
i
i =1
(4)
i
where:
i
=
the wood species,
Xi
=
the fraction of the total wood of the ith species used,
MDCi
=
the mean moisture content (dry basis) of species i (see equation 6), and
MWW =
Mass of wet wood burned. The wood used for the duration of the testing
was pre-weighed. Fuel use was the difference between amount of weighed
wood at the start of the test, and the amount of weighed wood remaining at
the end of the test. The data were summed over the time periods of
interest.
Fraction of time stove was in operation
The woodstove was determined to be in operation whenever chimney gas temperatures
exceeded 38° C (100° F). Temperature was determined continuously by a thermocouple
and the value was recorded every fifteen minutes. The fraction of time the stove was
operating was calculated as follows:
18
Percent of time woodstove operates (WO)
=
# of readings where Tf > 100 °F
Total # of readings
X 100%.
(5)
Mean fuel moisture by species
Mean fuel moisture was determined each week by successive measurements of fuel
stockpiled for immediate burning. The average moisture for each species of fuel wood
was determined from at least ten percent or more of the total wood pieces for each species
of wood for each sampling week.
Average weekly fuel moisture (dry basis) for species i (MDCi) =
1
n
n
∑MC
j
(6)
j =1
where:
MCj
=
Moisture value of the jth measurement (n >6).
When a moisture meter reading exceeded 30 percent moisture (dry basis), a sample was
taken and moisture determined by the standard oven drying technique (ASTM D2016) In
these cases:
MDCi =
W BD − W AD
W AD
where:
MDCi =
Dry basis moisture content of species i,
WBD
=
Weight of sample before drying, and
WAD
=
Weight of sample after oven drying.
19
(6a)
Mean Wood Burn Rate
Mean wood burn rate =
( M D W )(1 0 0)
(S P )(W O )
(7)
where:
MDN =
Mass of dry wood burned during sampling (see equation 4),
SP
=
Sampling period, and
WO
=
Mean Chimney Gas Oxygen Content in Percent
Mean chimney gas oxygen content in percent (% O2) =
1
n
n
∑O
2i
(8)
i =1
where:
O2,i
=
oxygen concentration of the chimney gas of the ith reading (%), and
n
=
total number of valid readings.
Chimney oxygen was recorded every fifteen minutes and averaged over each sampling
week or fraction of the sampling week of interest.
Mean Chimney Gas Temperature
1
n
Mean chimney gas temperature (Tf) =
n
∑ (T )
f i
i
where:
(Tf)i
=
Mean chimney gas temperature for the ith valid reading, and
n
=
Number of valid readings in the sampling period.
20
(9)
Mass of POM compounds / mass of dry wood burned
The mass of each individual 7-PAH and 16-PAH compound’s emissions were
summed to get the 7-PAH and 16-PAH POM surrogate mass emission values,
respectively. By substituting these values for the particulate mass emission value
(MP) in equation 2, the emission factors (mass POM surrogate/ mass of dry wood)
for the 7-PAH and 16-PAH POM surrogates were calculated. The seven and 16
individual compounds that make up the 7-PAH and 16-PAH surrogates are listed
in Table 2-7 and the calculations conducted according to Equation (10).
Table 2-7
7-PAH and 16-PAH Surrogates for POM
1
Acenaphthene
2
Acenaphthylene
3
Anthracene
4
Benzo(a)anthracene*
5
Benzo(a)pyrene*
6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
7
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
8
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*
9
Chrysene*
10
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene*
11
Fluoranthene
12
Fluorene
13
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene*
14
Naphthalene
15
Phenanthrene
16
Pyrene
* 7-PAH Compounds
21
( P A H )(S V )
( F R )(S D )(1 − [% O 2 2 0 .9 % ])
Mass of POM/mass dry wood burned =
(10)
where:
(P A H )
Mass of PAH emissions (PAH)
Total chimney gas volume (TF)
SV
=
=
(T F )
( F R )(S D )
(S V )( M D W )
=
%O2 

1 −


2 0 .9 % 
,
,
Volume of chimney gas per unit mass of dry wood from the stoichiometric
combustion of wood, obtained from proximate/ultimate analysis data and a
small correction for carbon monoxide levels characteristic of EPAcertified Phase 2 woodstove emissions,
MDW =
Mass of dry wood burned during sampling (see equation 4), and
%O2
Percent of oxygen in chimney gas measured with the AWES.
=
Mass of POM compounds/time of stove operation
The 7-PAH and 16-PAH POM surrogate mass emission values were substituted for the
particulate mass emission value (MP) in equation 3 to calculate the emission rates (mass
POM surrogate/ time of stove operation) for the 7-PAH and 16-PAH surrogates.
Mass particulate emissions/time of stove operations =
( P A H )(S V )( M D W )(1 0 0 )
( F R )(S D )(S P )(W O )(1 − [% O 2 2 0 .9 % ])
where:
SP
=
Sampling period (usually one week), and
WO
=
22
(11)
In the conduct of field measurements, laboratory support and data reduction tasks, the
quality assurance procedures that have been developed for previous U.S. EPA studies (see
Appendix B) were followed. In addition a project specific quality assurance plan was developed
and approved for this study. Two key quality assurance activities were an independent check of
10% of the data reduction and the processing of field blanks.
23
Section 3.0
Results and Discussion
The results are presented in three sections. The condition of the stoves along with their
history and current use and a description the home settings is provided in Section 3.1. Particulate
emission results are presented Section 3.2. POM emission results are presented in Section 3.3.
3.1 Condition of Stoves
Table 3-1 lists the home code, stove model, and a summary of the stove condition and
usage for homes in Klamath Falls. Photographs of these stoves and degraded components are
provided in Appendix A. A narrative description for the stoves in Klamath Falls by home code
(home codes KF01 through KF08) follows.
KF01 The QuadraFire 2100 (Appendix A, Photograph 1) was installed September 10, 1991 and
has been owned and operated by the same person. It is located in a dusty environment in
a ceramic shop with poor insulation. It is in overall good condition except for the
ceramic blanket which is pushed up partially blocking the exhaust flow (Appendix A,
Photograph 2). The blanket installation was repaired before testing was conducted for
this study. The stove is used as the primary heat source for the small business and is
usually operated for more than 16 hours per day during the heating season. The chimney
is cleaned and inspected once per year. The owners of the business live adjacent to the
shop and use an oil furnace as a supplemental heating source when the shop is
unoccupied.
The owner typically burns two to three cords of lodgepole pine cordwood a year, and
feels that the stove has heated the shop well. However, the owner noted that the stove
was difficult to light, and sometimes initially difficult to keep burning. These problems
were probably due to the ceramic blanket partially blocking the exhaust flow.
KF02 The Pacific Energy Super 27 (Appendix A, Photograph 3) was provided to the
homeowner as part of the 1990 Wood Heating Alliance (WHA) study (12). The home is
a two-story A-frame style. The previous owners had the baffle replaced (Appendix A,
Photograph 4) approximately six years prior to the study with an identical baffle because
the baffle assembly had degraded to the point that the stove would not heat the home
adequately. The baffle was replaced by a professional installer. Otherwise, the
24
Table 3-1
Home Code, Model, and Condition for Klamath Falls Woodstoves
Home Code
Stove Modela
Stove Condition and Usage
KF01
Quadrafire
2100
Non-Catalytic
Impaired / Normal Weard
Minimal Use during Heating Season
KF02b
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
Impaired / Normal Weard
Extensive Use during Heating Season
KF03c
Haughs
171E
Non-Catalytic
Normal Wear
KF04
Earthstove
1003C
Catalytic
Normal Wear
KF05
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
Impaired
Regular Use during Heating Season
KF06
Waterford
104 MKII
Non-Catalytic
Impaired
KF07
Earthstove
1400HT
Non-Catalytic
Normal Wear
KF08
Country
T-Top
Non-Catalytic
Normal Wear
a
b
Stove in home KF02 in this study was referred to as Home 3 or CK03 in the 1990 Energy, Mines
and Resources Canada (EMRC) Study (13).
c
Stove designated as KF03 in this study was referred to as H-5 or WK05 in the 1990 Wood
Heating Alliance (WHA) Study (12). Additionally, this stove was referred to as KF04 in the 1992
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) study (8).
d
The stove was impaired by use but was repaired and in the “normal wear” condition at the time of this
study.
25
installation has not changed since the WHA study. The chimney system is inspected and
cleaned once a year.
The owner typically burns five cords of lodgepole pine or ponderosa pine each burning
season. The unit is used as the primary heat source and fired 24 hours per day. The
owner feels that it heats the home well.
KF03 The Haughs 171E woodstove (Appendix A, Photograph 5) was given to the current
owner as part of the 1990 WHA study (12) and was also used in the 1992 Bonneville
Administration (BPA) study (19). It is in overall good condition showing only normal
wear, with the exception of cracking along the rear level of secondary air ports
(Appendix A, Photograph 6). The unit has been operated and maintained by the same
home owners that participated in the 1990 and 1992 studies and there have been no
changes in the installation of this unit.
They feel that the stove has heated the home well. Approximately five cords of mixed
juniper, cedar, and lodgepole pine are burned per heating season.
KF04 The Earthstove model 1003-C (Appendix A, Photograph 7) was installed in early 1992.
It is designed for mobile home installation getting its combustion air from outside the
home. It is in good overall condition. The owner felt that the catalytic combustor was no
longer working and needed replacement. Visual inspection did reveal some thermal
wear. However, temperatures observed in the flue and at the installed catalyst
temperature indicator during testing showed that the catalyst was in proper working order.
The door gasket was in good condition, as were the refractory elements.
The owner felt that the unit heated the home well. It is used as the primary heat source,
and fired 24 hours per day. Typically, four to five cords of Douglas fir are burned per
heating season.
KF05 The Pacific Energy Super 27 (Appendix A, Photograph 8) was installed November 23,
1991, and has been owned and operated by the same person. It is in overall fair
condition with the exception that the front right portion of the baffle area and the ceramic
blanket are degraded (Appendix A, Photograph 9). The stove is used as the primary heat
source and operated for more than 16 hours per day during the heating season. The
chimney is cleaned and inspected once per year.
The owner uses the stove as the primary heat source during the burning season, and feels
that it heats the home well. Typically two to three cords of juniper are burned per year.
KF06 The Waterford MKII (Appendix A, Photograph 10) was installed on July 12, 1991, and
has been operated by the same owners. The chimney is cleaned and inspected once per
year. It is in good operating condition except for the front portion of the baffle which is
26
in a severely degraded state (Appendix A, Photograph 11). Such degradation is probably
either the result of thermal or chemical breakdown of the baffle material. Chemical
breakdown such as was seen on the baffle can be caused by burning trash. Thermal
breakdown can be caused by intense fire conditions such as can be caused by a strong
draft which is in turn can be caused by a tall chimney. It is interesting to note that the
chimney in this home is tall (approximately 21 feet total vertical rise).
This stove and a Phase I certified woodstove located in another part of the house are used
as the primary heat sources during the burning season. The owner feels that the
Waterford stove does a good job of heating the section of house in which it is located.
Three to four cords of mixed lodgepole pine and Douglas fir are burned in the stove
annually.
KF07 The Earthstove 1400 HT (Appendix A, Photograph 12) insert was installed early 1992,
and has been owned and operated by the same person. The stove is fitted with a stainless
steel flue collar and stainless steel lined flue. The refractory elements show some wear
(Appendix A, Photograph 13). The steel components of the stove are in good condition.
However, the secondary inlet tube shows some warping (Appendix A, Photograph 14).
The door gasket is in fair condition, with some degradation on the combustion side of the
glass seal.
The owner typically burns three to five cords of lodgepole pine per year. The stove is
used as the primary source of heat. The owner feels that the unit has done a great job
heating the home, and mentioned that it can easily overheat the house.
KF08 The Country T-Top woodstove (Appendix A, Photograph 15) was installed during the
1992/1993 heating season. The stove is the only source of heat for the home and is fired
continuously during the burning season. The firebox is in overall good condition. The
secondary air tubes show some flaking on their surfaces. The door gasket is in usable but
degraded condition.
The stove is used as the primary heat source for the home. The owner burns four to five
cords of lodgepole pine per winter, and is satisfied with the performance of the stove.
Table 3-2 lists the home code, stove model, and a summary of the stove condition and
usage for homes in Portland. Photographs of these stoves and degraded components are provided
in Appendix A. A narrative description for the stoves in Portland by home code (home codes
P01 through P08) follows.
27
Table 3-2
Home Code, Model, and Condition for Portland Woodstoves
Home
Stovea
Stove Condition and Usage
P01
Trailblazer
Genesis 2000
Catalytic
Impaired
Extensive Use All Year Long
P02
Lopi
Answer Series
Non-Catalytic
Impaired
P03
Lopi
380-96
Non-Catalytic
Normal Wear
P04
Lopi
Flush Bay-96b
Catalytic
Normal Wear
Minimal Use during Heating Season.
P05
Lopi
Flex-95
Catalytic
Normal Wear
P06
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
Normal Wear
P07
Lopi
520-96
Non-Catalytic
Normal Wear
Vermont Castings
Defiant Encorec
Catalytic
Normal Wear
P08
a
b
Lopi Flush Bay-96 is now called Freedom.
c
The Vermont Castings Defiant Encore stove was installed when stove was EPA Phase I certified.
Since the installation, the stove has been added to EPA Phase II certification list without changes
to the stove’s design.
28
P01
The Genesis 2000 (Appendix A, Photograph 16) was installed on September of 1991.
The unit has been used as the primary heat source in the home since installation and is
operated 24 hours a day. The unit is in overall fair condition. The baffle (Appendix A,
Photograph 17) and catalyst (Appendix A, Photograph 18) are operational but show
significant thermal degradation.
The stove is used as the primary source of heat in this home and is actually fired 24 hours
per day, all year long. The unit is used all year long not just in the burning season due to
the fact that the home is located at higher elevation outside the Portland metropolitan area
where the climate is cooler. The homeowner does not like to restart the stove. Hence,
even in the summer it is allowed to operate in the “dampered down” mode during the
daytime. Approximately twelve cords of wood are burned per year.
P02
The LOPI Answer series (Appendix A, Photograph 19) was installed in 1991 and has
been owned and operated by the same person. The baffle refractory is in good condition.
The firebox side and rear refractory show some degradation. The door and window
gasket are in good condition, as is the front secondary air tube. However, the support for
the front secondary air tube has degraded to the point where it has lost structural strength
(Appendix A, Photograph 20). The rear secondary air tube is partially blocked by creosote
(Appendix A, Photograph 21). The creosote buildup indicates that the unit is typically
operated with combustion air restricted (the damper shutdown). The thermal degradation
of the front secondary air tube support indicates that the unit receives most of its
combustion air though the front of the unit.
The unit is used part time by the owners who feel satisfied about the stove’s ability to
heat their home. They typically burn one to two cords of mixed oak and Douglas fir per
year.
P03
The LOPI 380-96 (Appendix A, Photograph 22) was installed in October of 1992, and
owned and operated by the same person. Overall the stove is in excellent condition. It is
only used part-time during the burning season. The door and window gaskets are still in
excellent condition, as are the fire brick, fire brick hangers, and secondary air tubes.
The primary heat source for the home is a heat pump. The owner is satisfied with the
performance of the stove. One to two cords of mixed Douglas fir and birch are burned
each year.
P04
The LOPI Flushbay-96 (Appendix A, Photograph 23) was installed in 1992 by the
existing owner. It is equipped with a flexible stainless steel flue pipe at the flue collar
that leads to a solid vertical stainless steel liner. The unit’s door and glass seals are in
excellent condition. The firebox refractory is in good condition. However, the secondary
air tube shows signs of warping and flaking (Appendix A, Photograph 24), but is still in
good functional condition.
29
The unit is used part time by the owner who feels satisfied about the stove’s ability to
heat the home. Typically, one to two cords of oak are burned per year.
P05
The LOPI Flex-95 (Appendix A, Photograph 25) was installed in November of 1990, and
has been owned and operated by the same person. The baffle refractory and baffle
supports, along with the secondary air tube, are all in good condition. The side and rear
fire brick show cracks, but no visible sign of thermal degradation. It is likely that the
cracks in the fire brick are from physical impact. The catalyst is in good operating
condition but shows fly ash accumulation. The Interam seal surrounding the catalyst has
been disturbed and dislodged in places (Appendix A, Photograph 26). This is apparently
from removing and replacing the catalyst without replacing the Interam seal.
The owner typically burns one to two cords of mixed cherry and lodgepole pine per year.
The stove is used part time during the heating season. The owner is satisfied with its
performance.
P06
The Pacific Energy Super 27 (Appendix A, Photograph 27) was installed in 1990. After
the initial installation, the stove was temporarily removed for floor repair and replaced
back into the original installation configuration. The door gasket is in good condition,
while the fire brick shows some thermal wear. The unit is in fair operational condition
except for a sagging baffle (Appendix A, Photograph 28). Although the baffle sags, there
are no visible cracks in it.
At the time of this study, the stove was the home’s only source of heat. An oil furnace in
the home was not operational. The owner typically burns one to two cords per year.
However, three to four cords were burned during the study year due to the oil furnace not
being in service. The owner feels that the stove heats the home well.
P07
The LOPI 520-96 (Appendix A, Photograph 29) is in overall good condition. It was
installed in October 1992. It is used extensively during the heating season. The stove
was the only working source of heat in the home at the time of the study, and was used 24
hours a day. The door gasket and baffle are all in good condition, while the secondary air
tube shows signs of flaking (Appendix A, Photograph 30). However, the air tube is still
in good operational condition.
The owner typically burns two to three cords per winter, but burned four to five cords
during the winter of the current study because an oil furnace which is normally used was
not operational during the study period. The owner is satisfied with the heating
performance of the stove.
P08
The Vermont Castings Defiant Encore (Appendix A, Photograph 31) is in good working
condition, including the door gaskets and refractory elements. It was installed in 1989.
The unit has a top vented exhaust rising about four feet where it is connected to a terra
30
cotta lined masonry chimney. The chimney cap allows rain into the chimney. The water
makes its way to the connection where it drips out into the back left corner of the stove.
The unit is used as a secondary heat source for the home. The owners indicated that they
are happy with the stove. They typically burn one to two cords of oak per year.
Out of the sixteen stoves inspected, six degraded to the point of probably impairing
emission performance. Two of these were repaired by the homeowner prior to conducting
emission testing for this study. Consequently, the emission results of this study represent
emissions from 12 units in the “normal wear” condition and from four units in a significantly
degraded condition. Because there were so many variables (burn rate, cordwood tree species,
wood moisture, chimney height, historical burning practices, and stove model) there was no clear
cause and effect relationship observed. It was, however, noted by the inspector, that in general,
routine stove maintenance had not been done and that this maintenance and/or minor repairs
would have kept all stoves in acceptable working condition.
3.2
Particulate Matter Emissions
The results for each of the 43 valid one-week testing runs are summarized in Appendix C
and in Tables 3-3 through 3-6. Emissions were determined for a range of normal wood burning
practices such as occur in actual home installations. For example, week-long averages of burn
rates ranged from 0.6 dry kg of wood per hour to 2.0 dry kg of wood per hour and average wood
moisture contents ranged from 9.8% to 105.0% on a dry basis (8.9% to 51.2% on a wet basis). It
should be noted that not only are the emission results representative of the range of actual
emissions from the in-home use of woodstoves, they also represent credible mean values for each
set of conditions since they inherently average the emissions from a considerable mass of wood
combusted over numerous burn cycles during each sampling week. The amount of wood burned
over the one-week tests ranged from 77.3 kg to 517.4 kg (58.8 kg to 325.4 kg on a dry basis).
Not surprisingly, emission factors and emission rates calculated for the week-long tests
were variable. The factors ranged from 1.9 g/ dry kg to 20.8 g/dry kg and the rates ranged from
1.7 g/hr to 40.3 g/hr. There was no clear relationship between the condition of an individual
stove and its particulate emissions. In addition, there was no clear statistical relationship (no R2
values greater than 0.9) between emission factors and either burn rate or fuel moisture for
catalytic stoves, non-catalytic stoves or for both categories combined. While it is a generally
accepted fact that lower burn rates, wet wood and degraded stoves tend to produce higher
emission factors, there were, as previously discussed, so many inherent variables that the effects
of individual parameters were unable to be determined.
Average fuel moisture, particulate emissions, burn rate and outdoor temperature are
shown in Table 3-7 for Klamath Falls and in Table 3-8 for Portland. A summary of particulate
emission results by stove grouping (catalytic, non-catalytic and all stoves) and city are presented
31
Table 3-3
Individual Test Results for Klamath Falls Stoves KF01 – KF04
Home Code
KF01
KF02
KF03a
KF04a
Stove Model
Quadrafire
2100
Non-Catalytic
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
Haughs
171E
Non-Catalytic
Earthstove
1003-C
Catalytic
Week
32
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
B
Start Date
11/25/98
12/04/98
12/10/98
11/08/98
12/02/98
12/09/98
11/22/98
12/06/98
11/14/98
12/02/98
End Date
12/02/98
12/10/98
12/16/98
11/15/98
12/09/98
12/16/98
11/29/98
12/13/98
11/21/98
12/09/98
Total Data Collection Hours
168.0
141.0
142.8
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
167.0
% Time Stove Burned
54.9
66.3
30.3
100.0
97.5
79.6
85.0
95.2
100.0
100.0
Avg. Stack Temp. (°F)
478
493
482
448
412
374
430
475
398
510
Avg. %O2 (Flue >100 °F)
15.87
15.54
16.29
14.53
14.52
15.15
17.58
16.52
15.42
12.59
Fuel Mass (Wet kg)
134.5
145.0
77.3
196.4
207.6
142.5
133.8
165.8
184.4
212.2
Fuel Moisture (% Dry Basis)
20.2
24.5
31.4
20.8
21.5
19.6
14.5
18.8
21.6
19.5
AWES Flow Rate (l/min)
0.985
0.985
0.985
1.124
1.124
1.124
1.038
1.038
1.042
1.042
Sample Time (min)/Cycle (min)
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
Indoor Ambient Temp. (°F)
70
62
72
67
57
54
75
71
75
71
Outdoor Ambient Temp. (°F)
37
17
30
33
22
29
38
23
37
2
(Continued)
Home Code
KF01
KF02
KF03a
KF04a
Stove Model
Quadrafire
2100
Non-Catalytic
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
Haughs
171E
Non-Catalytic
Earthstove
1002-C
Catalytic
Week
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
B
Rinse Particulate (g)
91.2
163.1
39.2
307.2
193.6
250.5
60.4
88.4
461.9
439.7
XAD-2® Particulate (g)
57.0
41.4
6.1
103.0
126.4
42.9
30.4
17.2
448.3
458.8
Filter Particulate (g)
139.0
102.4
29.9
136.3
159.6
87.7
55.0
7.4
386.5
687.7
Total Particulate (g)
(Blank Subtracted)
287.2
343.4
75.2
546.5
479.6
381.1
145.8
113.0
1296.7
1586.2
Fuel Mass (Dry kg)
111.9
116.5
58.8
162.6
170.9
119.1
116.8
139.6
151.6
177.6
Burn Rate (kg (Dry)/hr)
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.1
Emission Factor (g/kg (Dry))
7.8
8.7
4.8
5.7
5.1
5.5
3.7
1.9
17.5
14.2
Emission Rate (g/hr)
9.5
10.8
6.5
5.5
5.3
4.9
3.0
1.7
15.8
15.1
Concentration (mg/m3)
395
466
221
362
326
317
123
85
926
1,139
33
A
a
There are no data for week A for KF03 and week C for KF04 due to loss of sample and/or laboratory data.
Table 3-4
Home Code
Stove Model
KF05
KF06
KF07
KF08
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
Waterford
104.MKII
NonCatalytic
Earthstove 1400HT
Non-Catalytic
Country T-Top
Non-Catalytic
A
B
C
Aa
A
B
C
A
B
C
Start Date
11/08/98
11/22/98
12/08/98
11/10/98
11/08/98
11/22/98
12/06/98
11/08/98
11/22/98
12/05/98
End Date
11/15/98
11/25/98
12/15/98
11/17/98
11/16/98
11/29/98
12/13/98
11/15/98
11/30/98
12/13/98
168.0
78.5
168.0
168.0
168.3
168.0
168.0
168.0
172.8
171.0
% Time Stove Burned
89.7
96.2
91.1
100.0
99.7
95.4
98.7
100.0
98.3
99.7
446
404
470
431
424
457
484
384
428
446
Avg. %O2 (Flue >100 °F)
16.28
16.73
15.71
16.00
16.72
16.83
15.64
16.47
17.48
16.08
Fuel Mass (Wet kg)
137.7
70.7
172.2
126.0
158.5
133.7
225.4
238.4
237.1
257.7
10.4
9.8
11.3
11.7
12.6
11.7
15.8
26.8
25.4
25.7
1.069
1.069
1.069
1.145
1.109
1.109
1.109
1.058
1.058
1.058
Sample Time (min)/Cycle
(min)
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
75
74
63
77
75
70
74
79
75
74
33
40
28
35
33
38
23
33
38
21
Week
34
(Continued)
Home Code
Stove Model
KF05
KF06
KF07
KF08
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
Waterford
104.MKII
Non-Catalytic
Earthstove 1400HT
Non-Catalytic
Country T-Top
Non-Catalytic
A
B
C
Aa
A
B
C
A
B
C
147.4
128.1
74.0
214.0
265.6
202.2
313.1
313.5
236.4
212.0
92.4
24.6
49.6
83.1
123.0
103.7
93.1
95.3
26.2
65.5
69.0
41.3
68.7
157.6
233.3
154.0
232.5
153.2
342.0
89.0
(Blank Subtracted)
308.8
194.0
192.3
454.6
621.9
459.9
638.7
561.9
604.5
366.5
Fuel Mass (Dry kg)
124.7
64.4
154.7
112.8
140.8
119.7
194.7
188.0
189.0
205.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
5.2
7.2
2.8
6.0
9.9
7.9
8.2
8.9
12.3
5.2
4.3
6.1
2.8
4.0
8.3
5.9
9.7
9.9
13.6
6.3
240
300
147
295
418
324
434
395
421
254
Week
35
a
There are no data for weeks B and C for KF06 due to death in the family.
Table 3-5
Individual Test Results for Portland Stoves P01 – P04
Home Code
P01
P02
P03
P04
Stove Model
HES Trailblazer
2000-C
Catalytic
LOPI
Answer Series
Non-Catalytic
LOPI
380-96
Non-Catalytic
LOPI
Flushbay-96
Catalytic
Week
36
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Start Date
01/11/99
01/19/99
01/26/99
01/13/99
01/20/99
01/27/99
01/12/99
01/19/99
01/26/99
01/13/99
01/20/99
01/27/99
End Date
01/19/99
01/26/99
02/02/99
01/20/99
01/27/99
02/03/99
01/19/99
01/26/99
02/02/99
01/20/99
01/27/99
02/03/99
171.3
168.3
168.0
168.0
166.8
168.0
168.8
168.8
168.0
168.3
168.0
168.0
% Time Stove Burned
100.0
100.0
100.0
54.9
68.8
65.2
20.1
35.1
40.9
56.6
69.6
69.5
413
443
457
311
339
324
356
370
367
285
327
279
Avg. %O2 (Flue >100 °F)
14.66
14.44
13.90
18.13
16.50
17.00
17.65
17.89
17.76
17.16
16.70
17.62
Fuel Mass (Wet kg)
260.2
252.9
258.9
117.6
103.3
99.9
32.5
72.8
85.4
83.6
130.0
91.1
24.0
21.0
22.8
101.2
18.5
26.7
18.3
18.3
23.3
18.3
18.5
18.4
1.058
1.058
1.058
1.124
1.124
1.124
1.069
1.069
1.069
1.145
1.145
1.145
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
80
71
72
76
78
71
80
74
74
77
75
75
47
42
45
48
41
45
48
42
45
48
41
45
(Continued)
Home Code
P01
P02
P03
P04
Stove Model
HES Trailblazer
2000-C
Catalytic
LOPI
Answer Series
Non-Catalytic
LOPI
380-96
Non-Catalytic
LOPI
Flushbay-96
Catalytic
Week
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
428.5
376.7
682.1
201.4
272.5
271.8
49.0
81.0
85.9
97.4
118.2
133.7
262.2
260.2
230.9
75.3
232.4
96.1
11.9
14.6
23.2
34.5
39.3
27.4
625.3
506.5
385.5
182.2
335.2
199.9
(5.0)
13.5
1.3
47.9
71.2
50.7
(Blank Subtracted)
1,316.0
1,143.4
1,298.5
458.9
840.1
567.8
55.8
109.1
110.4
179.8
228.7
211.8
Fuel Mass (Dry kg)
209.8
209.0
210.9
58.5
87.2
78.9
27.5
61.5
69.2
70.7
109.7
77.0
1.2
1.2
1.3
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.7
Emission Factor (g/kg
(Dry))
15.0
12.9
13.5
19.4
17.5
14.3
5.9
7.1
5.8
5.4
5.0
5.9
18.4
16.0
16.9
12.3
13.3
10.3
4.7
7.4
5.8
4.0
4.7
3.9
908
803
913
553
814
577
192
215
188
206
213
198
37
A
Table 3-6
Home Code
P05
P06
P07
P08a
Stove Model
LOPI
Flex-95
Catalytic
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
LOPI
520/96
Non-Catalytic
Vermont Castings
Defiant Encore
Catalytic
Week
38
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
Start Date
01/14/99
01/22/99
01/30/99
01/23/99
01/30/99
02/07/99
01/20/99
01/27/99
02/03/99
01/22/99
01/29/99
End Date
01/21/99
01/29/99
02/06/99
01/30/99
02/06/99
02/14/99
01/27/99
02/03/99
02/10/99
01/29/99
02/05/99
167.3
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
166.8
168.0
168.0
168.0
133.3
97.8
% Time Stove Burned
12.0
19.9
20.1
82.7
84.5
91.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.3
38.4
334
403
372
475
464
485
348
327
342
343
383
Avg. %O2 (Flue >100 °F)
18.50
18.12
18.32
15.52
15.55
14.07
15.14
15.14
14.13
16.93
16.72
Fuel Mass (Wet kg)
48.6
32.7
38.1
412.5
373.1
351.7
487.2
517.4
406.1
211.8
76.2
19.3
19.0
19.0
100.8
105.0
101.2
101.2
105.0
24.8
24.8
25.0
1.038
1.038
1.038
1.042
1.042
1.042
1.109
1.109
1.109
1.078
1.078
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
2/15
73
72
70
71
69
72
69
69
71
71
74
48
42
44
42
44
41
41
45
41
42
44
(Continued)
Home Code
Stove
Week
P05
P06
P07
P08a
LOPI
Flex-95
Catalytic
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
LOPI
520/96
Non-Catalytic
Vermont
Castings
Defiant Encore
Catalytic
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
37.6
51.8
19.2
233.0
284.5
313.0
334.2
407.6
503.1
370.8
105.0
6.0
3.9
6.4
69.2
355.7
109.3
326.3
313.1
367.9
182.7
33.9
-15.5
-5.7
6.4
286.2
322.6
362.8
974.1
916.5
1238.7
252.9
73.4
(Blank Subtracted)
28.1
50.0
32.0
588.3
962.8
785.1
1634.6
1637.2
2109.7
806.4
212.3
Fuel Mass (Dry kg)
40.7
27.5
32.0
205.4
182.0
174.9
242.2
252.4
325.4
169.8
61.0
2.0
0.8
0.9
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.9
1.3
1.6
7.0
6.4
4.4
9.1
14.7
8.7
18.4
18.5
20.8
17.7
15.5
14.3
5.3
4.2
13.5
18.9
10.0
26.6
27.7
40.3
23.0
25.2
169
180
114
508
813
616
1,097
1,099
1,416
714
657
39
A
a
There are no data for week C for P08 due to loss of sample data.
Table 3-7
Average Fuel Moisture, Particulate Emissions, Burn Rate, and Outdoor
Temperature for Stoves in Klamath Falls
Average
Home
Code
Number
of Runs
Fuel
Moisture
%
(Dry Basis)
KF01
3
25.37 + 4.61
1.27 + 0.09
7.10 + 1.67
8.93 + 1.80
28 + 4
n=22
KF02
3
20.63 + 0.78
0.97 + 0.05
5.43 + 0.25
5.23 + 0.25
28 + 7
n=24
KF03
2
16.55
0.85
2.80
2.35
31 + 5
n=16
KF04a
2
20.55
1.00
15.85
15.45
30 + 7
n=16
KF05
3
10.55 + 0.62
0.90 + 0.08
5.07 + 1.80
4.40 + 1.35
34 + 4
n=20
KF06
1
11.70
0.70
6.00
4.00
35 + 5
n=8
KF07
3
13.37 + 1.76
0.90 + 0.22
8.67 + 0.88
7.97 + 1.57
31 + 5
n=25
KF08
3
25.97 + 0.60
1.13 + 0.05
8.80 + 2.90
9.93 + 2.98
31 + 4
n=24
All
Stoves
20
18.68 + 6.09
1.00 + 0.19
7.43 + 3.73
7.45 + 3.94
31 + 2
n=155
Catalytic
Stoves
2
20.55
1.0
15.9
15.5
30 + 3
n=16
NonCatalytic
Stoves
18
18.47 + 6.38
0.99 + 0.19
6.49 + 2.53
6.56 + 3.06
31 + 2
n=139
a
b
Burn Rate
kg (Dry)/hr
Emission
Factor
g/kg (Dry)
Emission
Rate
g/hr
Outdoorb
Temperature
°F
Catalytic Stove
The outdoor temperature is the average of the high and low for each day over the sample period.
The value “n” is the number of days averaged over the sample period.
Values are followed by “+ Standard Deviation”.
40
Table 3-8
Average Fuel Moisture, Particulate Emissions, Burn Rate, and Outdoor
Temperature for Stoves in Portland
Average
Home
Code
Number
of Runs
Fuel
Moisture
%
(Dry Basis)
P01a
3
P02
Burn Rate
kg (Dry)/hr
Emission
Factor
g/kg (Dry)
Emission
Rate
g/hr
Outdoorb
Temperature
°F
22.60 + 1.23
1.23 + 0.05
13.80 + 0.88
17.10 + 0.99
45 + 4
n=25
3
48.80 + 37.20
0.70 + 0.08
17.07 + 2.10
11.97 + 1.25
45 + 4
n=24
P03
3
19.97 + 2.36
0.93 + 0.09
6.27 + 0.59
5.97 + 1.11
45 + 4
n=24
P04a
3
18.40 + 0.08
0.77+ 0.09
5.43 + 0.37
4.20 + 0.36
45 + 4
n=24
P05a
3
19.10 + 0.14
1.23 + 0.54
5.93 + 1.11
7.93 + 4.52
44 + 4
n=24
P06
3
102.33 + 1.89
1.30 + 0.16
10.83 + 2.74
14.13 + 3.66
42 + 3
n=24
P07
3
77.00 + 36.94
1.60 + 0.22
19.23 + 1.11
31.53 + 6.22
43 + 3
n=24
P08a
2
24.90
1.45
16.60
24.10
43 + 4
n=16
All Stoves
23
42.37 + 35.77
1.14 + 0.38
11.69 + 5.42
14.20 + 9.30
44 + 1
n=185
Catalytic
Stoves
11
20.92 + 2.59
1.15 + 0.38
9.88 + 4.78
12.35 + 7.80
44 + 1
n=89
NonCatalytic
Stoves
12
62.03 + 40.47
1.13 + 0.37
13.35 + 5.44
15.90 + 10.20
44 + 1
n=96
a
b
Catalytic Stove
The outdoor temperature is the average of the high and low for each day over the sample period.
The value “n” is the number of days averaged over the sample period.
41
in Table 3-9. One significant result of this study is the difference in average emissions between
stoves tested in Portland and Klamath Falls. On the average, emission factors and emission rates
for stoves in Portland (11.69 g/kg and 14.20 g/hr, respectively) were considerably higher than for
stoves in Klamath Falls (7.43 g/kg and 7.45 g/hr, respectively). This observation is consistent
with the fact that the moisture was more than two times higher, on the average, for wood burned
in Portland than for wood burned in Klamath Falls. In addition, the differences are consistent
with the fact that the burn rates for woodstoves in Portland were, on the average, slightly higher
than for woodstoves in Klamath Falls. The increased burn rate would tend to make the
differences between emission rates relatively higher than emission factors for the two cities as
seen in the values of the two cities. (Higher burn rates tend to decrease emission factors but
increase emission rates.)
A comparison of average particulate emission factors for study stoves with U.S. EPA
emission factor values tabulated in AP-42 (14) is provided in Table 3-10. A key finding of this
study is illustrated in the table. The average emission factors for the old catalytic and noncatalytic stoves (10.8 g/kg and 9.23 g/kg) evaluated in this study were higher than the respective
emission factors (8.1 g/kg and 7.3 g/kg) for newer units of both types listed in AP-42, but were
lower than the emission factor listed in AP-42 for conventional uncertified stoves (15.3 g/kg). In
other words, particulate emissions of the certified stoves evaluated in this study appear to have
become higher with use, but after about seven years they still on the average have lower
emissions than uncertified conventional stoves.
A comparison of current and past emission factors for the two stoves in Klamath Falls
that were part of earlier studies is provided in Table 3-11. Fuel type, fuel moisture, burn rates
and the number of week-long tests used to calculate the mean emission factors for current and
past studies are also included in the table for comparison purposes. As can be seen, the emission
performance of the stove in home KF02 degraded with time. The emission performance of the
stove in home KF03 in the current study remained about the same as reported in the 1991/1992
heating season study. However, the emission factor for the same stove in the 1989/1990 heating
season study was higher than for either of the two later studies. The higher emission factor in the
1989/1990 study cannot be readily explained. However, it is probably simply a reflection of the
variability often seen in woodstove emissions when different fuels are burned and different
burning patterns are used.
A comparison between average emission rates based on multiple week-long tests for each
stove and the U.S. EPA certification value for each model is provided in Table 3-12. Another
key finding of this study is that there is no correlation between actual emission rates of older
stoves and their original certification value, that is, emission rates reported in the certification
process do not represent emission levels of stoves in homes after extended use.
42
Table 3-9
Summary of Particulate Emission Results
Average
a
Fuel Moisture
%
(Dry Basis)
Burn Rate
kg (Dry)/hr
Emission Factor
g/kg (Dry)
Emission Rate
g/hr
Outdoor
Temperature °F
All Stoves
(8 Stoves, 20 Runs)
18.68 + 6.09
1.00 + 0.19
7.43 + 3.73
7.45 + 3.94
31 + 2
n=155
Catalytic Stoves
(1 Stove, 2 Runs)
20.55
1.0
15.9
15.5
30 + 3
n=16
Non-Catalytic Stoves
(7 Stoves, 18 Runs)
18.47 + 6.38
0.99 + 0.19
6.49 + 2.53
6.56 + 3.06
31 + 2
n=139
All Stoves
(8 Stoves, 23 Runs)
42.37 + 35.77
1.14 + 0.38
11.69 + 5.42
14.20 + 9.30
44 + 1
n=185
Catalytic Stoves
(4 Stoves, 11 Runs)
20.92 + 2.59
1.15 + 0.38
9.88 + 4.78
12.35 + 7.80
44 + 1
n=89
(4 Stoves, 12 Runs)
62.03 + 40.47
1.13 + 0.37
13.35 + 5.44
15.90 + 10.20
44 + 1
n=96
All Stoves
(16 Stoves, 43 Runs)
31.35 + 29.00
1.07 + 0.31
9.71 + 5.17
11.06 + 8.05
37 + 8
n=340
Catalytic Stoves
(5 Stoves, 13 Runs)
20.86 + 2.42
1.12 + 0.36
10.80 + 4.94
12.83 + 7.26
41 + 6
n=105
35.89 + 33.69
1.05 + 0.29
9.23 + 5.20
10.30 + 8.26
36 + 8
n=235
Overall Study
43
Portland
Klamath Falls
Stove Group
a
Table 3-10
Comparison of Average Particulate Emission Factors (5H Adjusted) to
AP-42 Values
Measurement Technique
Method 5H Equivalent
Emission Factora
g/kg (Dry)
All Stoves
AWES Sampler
9.71
Catalytic Stoves
(5 Stoves, 13 Runs)
AWES Sampler
10.80
11 Stoves, 30 Runs)
AWES Sampler
9.23
Catalytic
AWES and VPI Samplerb
8.1
Non-Catalytic
7.3
Conventional
15.3
AP-42
Study
Stove Group
a
Reference 14.
b
The VPI sampler is a sampling train consisting of: a condensate trap, dual filter pack, DrieRite dessicant
trap, and evacuated canister developed by Jaasma, et al., at the Virgina Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
44
Table 3-11
Comparison of Particulate Emission Factors of Stoves in Current Study
to Particulate Emission Factors for the Same Stoves from Previous Studies
Home Code/
Stove Model
KF02
Pacific Energy
Super 27
Non-Catalytic
45
KF03
Haughs
171E
Non-Catalytic
Study
Heating
Season
Fuel
Fuel Moisture
% (Dry Basis)d
Burn Rate
kg (Dry)/hr
Emission Factor
g/kg (Dry)
Current
1998/1999
Ponderosa
20.63 + 0.78
0.97 + 0.05
5.43 + 0.25
(n=3)
EMRCa
1989/1990
Red Fir
16.9 + 0.63
1.21 + 0.24
2.78 + 0.10
(n=4)
Current
1998/1999
95% Lodgepole
5% Juniper
16.55
0.85
2.80
(n=2)
BPAb
1991/1992
Douglas Fir
Lodgepole
13.9
1.15
2.77
(n=1)
WHAc
1989/1990
Juniper
16.3
0.88
7.0
(n=2)
a
Reference 13.
b
Reference 8.
c
Reference 12.
d
Table 3-12
Comparison of Stove Particulate Emission Rates to U.S. EPA Certification
Valuesa
Home Code
Stove Model
Catalytic
Number
of Runs
Study
Averaged
Certification
Value
KF01
Quadrafire 2100
No
3
8.93 + 1.80
3.6
KF02
Pacific Energy Super 27
No
3
5.23 + 0.25
3.4
KF03
Haughs 171E
No
2
2.35
4.5
Yes
2
15.45
3.7
KF04
Earthstove 1003-C
KF05
No
3
4.40 + 1.35
3.4
KF06
Waterford 104.MKII
No
1
4.00
2.9
KF07
Earthstove 1400HT
No
3
7.97 + 1.57
6.6
KF08
Country T-Top
No
3
9.93 + 2.98
5.7
P01
HES Trailblazer 2000-C
Yes
3
17.10 + 0.99
3.1
P02
LOPI Answer Series
No
3
11.97 + 1.25
3.3
P03
LOPI 380-96
No
3
5.97 + 1.11
1.9
P04
LOPE Flushbay-96b
Yes
3
4.20 + 0.36
5.2
P05
LOPI Flex-95
Yes
3
7.93 + 4.52
4.1
P06
No
3
14.13 + 3.66
3.4
P07
LOPI 520/96
No
3
31.53 + 6.22
7.4
P08
Vermont Castings
Defiant Encorec
Yes
2
24.10
1.6
a
The certification threshold for phase 2 certified catalytic stoves is 4.1 g/hr and for non-catalytic stoves is
7.5 g/hr.
b
Lopi Flush Bay-96 is now called Freedom. The certification value shown in the table is for the Freedom.
c
The Vermont Castings Defiant Encore stove was installed when stove was EPA Phase I certified. Since
the installation, the stove has been added to EPA Phase II certification list without changes to the stove’s
design.
d
46
3.3 Polycyclic Organic Matter Emissions
The analytical results for 40 individual organic compounds and compound categories are
provided in Appendix D. The average emission factors and rates for these compounds and
compound categories by stove type (catalytic, non-catalytic and both combined) for Klamath
Falls stoves, for Portland stoves and for the overall study are provided in Tables 3-13, 3-14, and
3-15, respectively. Among the 40 compounds and compound categories are the seven and 16
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that make up the 7-PAH and 16-PAH POM surrogates.
The seven and 16 PAH compounds’ emissions are summed and their total emissions used as
surrogates of POM. The average emission factors and rates for these two surrogates are included
in Tables 3-13, 3-14 and 3-15.
A key finding of this study is that total particulate emissions cannot be used as a surrogate
measurement for woodstove POM emissions. In comparing the average 7-PAH and 16-PAH
values between Klamath Falls and Portland shown in Tables 3-13 and 3-14, it is clear that the
POM emissions, as indicated by the surrogates, were higher for the Klamath Falls stoves than for
the Portland stoves even though the particulate emissions were higher for the Portland stoves.
This finding is significant because it has been suggested that total particulate emissions can be
used as a surrogate measurement for POM emissions, and for the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for wood heaters it is noted that the same control techniques used to reduce
particulate emission are known to reduce POM emissions(4). A possible explanation of the lack
of correlation between particulate and POM emissions is that conifer cordwood was burned
exclusively in Klamath Falls whereas a mixture of conifer and deciduous cordwood was burned
in Portland. Cordwood from conifers has a higher resin content than cordwood from deciduous
trees. Resin is chemically comprised of condensed aromatic rings, hence it is closer in structure
to POM compounds then cellulose or lignin. It is generally believed that, if all else is equal, the
higher the aromatic compound content in a fuel the more POM emissions will be produced upon
its combustion. In any event, this study finds that total particulate emissions cannot be used as a
surrogate for POM emissions in woodstoves although control techniques for PM may, in fact,
reduce POM.
A comparison of overall average emission factors measured in this study for the 7-PAH
and 16-PAH surrogates emitted from catalytic and non-catalytic stoves with the 7-PAH and
16-PAH emission factors listed for them in AP-42 (14) is provided in Table 3-16. The 7-PAH
and 16-PAH data for catalytic and non-catalytic stoves in AP-42 are based on laboratory (not
inhome) tests with a limited number of stoves. The AP-42 7-PAH and 16-PAH values for
catalytic stoves are based on laboratory tests on seven stoves of which only one became a phase 2
certified model. The AP-42 values for non-catalytic stoves are based on laboratory tests on five
stoves none of which became phase 2 certified. (The AP-42 7-PAH and 16-PAH values for
conventional stoves, shown in Table 3-16 for completeness, were based on laboratory tests on
one stove [40].) Residential wood combustion has been identified, based on the AP-42 emission
factors, as the single, largest source of POM nationwide (2). As can be seen in Table 3-16, the
47
Table 3-13
Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates For Stoves in
Klamath Falls Homes
Catalytic
Non-Catalytic Non-Catalytic
Average
Average
Average
Emission Rate
Emission
Emission Rate
1 Stove
Factor
7 Stoves
2 Runs
7 Stoves
18 Runs
18 Runs
µg/hr
µg/hr
µ
µ
µg/kg (Dry)
µ
Catalytic
Average
Emission
Factor
1 Stove
2 Runs
(Dry)
µg/kg
µ
All Stoves
Average
Emission Rate
8 Stoves
20 Runs
µg/hr
µ
All Stoves
Average
Emission
Factor
8 Stoves
20 Runs
µg/kg (Dry)
µ
Toluene
159,922
158,134
146,381
144,568
281,792
280,228
m,p-Xylene
28,460
28,394
23,284
23,134
75,044
75,735
o-Xylene
9,702
9,613
7,761
7,680
27,175
27,014
Phenol
170,260
168,964
160,703
158,889
256,278
259,643
Benzofuran
37,900
37,708
34,891
34,597
64,987
65,710
C3-alkylbenzenes
42,070
41,994
33,527
33,537
118,957
118,102
Decane
164
120
182
134
0
0
o-Cresol
45,957
46,396
36,579
36,852
130,353
132,295
m,p-Cresol
80,541
81,517
68,023
68,792
193,204
196,043
C4-alkylbenzenes
161,273
156,220
121,448
116,622
519,699
512,599
0
0
0
0
0
0
2-Ethylphenol
2,987
3,017
2,545
2,558
6,967
7,155
2,3-Dimethylphenol
4,970
5,039
4,271
4,306
11,267
11,628
Naphthalene †
81,892
80,967
81,767
80,769
83,021
82,750
2-Methylnaphthalene
13,813
13,763
11,540
11,523
34,266
33,918
1-Methylnaphthalene
10,739
10,722
9,703
9,691
20,066
20,001
Biphenyl
6,292
6,259
5,757
5,720
11,104
11,110
Tetradecane
13,441
13,403
12,070
12,030
25,775
25,760
C2-alkylnaphthalenes
11,825
11,819
9,417
9,449
33,498
33,152
Acenaphthylene †
21,069
21,160
20,895
21,028
22,634
22,347
0
0
0
0
0
0
Acenaphthene †
1,216
1,219
1,022
1,027
2,969
2,944
Dibenzofuran
9,535
9,521
8,626
8,602
17,710
17,793
6,153
6,334
6,836
7,038
0
0
Fluorene †
6,011
6,049
5,703
5,755
8,778
8,695
Heptadecane
0
0
0
0
0
0
Octadecane
0
0
0
0
0
0
Undecane
Pentadecane
(Continued)
48
Table 3-13
(Continued)
Catalytic
Average
Average
Average
Emission Rate
Emission
Emission Rate
1 Stove
Factor
7 Stoves
2 Runs
7 Stoves
18 Runs
18 Runs
µg/hr
µ
µg/hr
µ
µg/kg (Dry)
µ
Catalytic
Average
Emission
Factor
1 Stove
2 Runs
(Dry)
µg/kg
µ
All Stoves
Average
Emission Rate
8 Stoves
20 Runs
µ
µg/hr
All Stoves
Average
Emission
Factor
8 Stoves
20 Runs
µg/kg (Dry)
µ
Phenanthrene †
26,201
26,466
26,086
26,413
27,227
26,940
Anthracene †
4,648
4,744
4,532
4,649
5,692
5,595
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fluoranthene †
9,185
9,339
9,357
9,533
7,643
7,588
Pyrene †
6,482
6,608
6,534
6,675
6,015
6,006
Benzo(a)anthracene*†
1,592
1,624
1,685
1,723
753
736
Chrysene*†
1,739
1,783
1,832
1,884
897
877
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*†
977
1,028
974
1,030
1,004
1,013
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*†
142
153
141
154
152
143
Benzo(a)pyrene*†
432
460
440
474
361
340
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene*†
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene*†
0
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene †
0
0
0
0
0
0
7-PAH
4,882
5,049
5,073
5,264
3,168
3,109
16-PAH
161,587
161,600
160,969
161,115
167,148
165,973
Carbazole
* 7-PAH
† 16-PAH
49
Table 3-14
Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates for Stoves in Portland Homes
Catalytic
Average
Average
Average
Emission Rate
Emission
Emission Rate
4 Stoves
Factor
4 Stoves
11 Runs
4 Stoves
12 Runs
12 Runs
µg/hr
µg/hr
µ
µ
µg/kg (Dry)
µ
Catalytic
Average
Emission
Factor
4 Stoves
11 Runs
(Dry)
µg/kg
µ
All Stoves
Average
Emission Rate
8 Stoves
23 Runs
µg/hr
µ
All Stoves
Average
Emission
Factor
8 Stoves
23 Runs
(Dry)
µg/kg
µ
Toluene
161,197
129,649
153,252
130,978
169,864
128,199
m,p-Xylene
43,433
33,818
42,412
34,146
44,547
33,460
o-Xylene
15,008
11,813
14,463
11,933
15,602
11,681
Phenol
288,925
228,837
246,889
209,798
334,783
249,607
Benzofuran
58,355
46,327
55,553
46,037
61,413
46,644
C3-alkylbenzenes
36,454
26,559
42,873
34,265
29,452
18,152
Decane
0
0
0
0
0
0
o-Cresol
100,976
79,142
93,721
77,008
108,890
81,469
m,p-Cresol
148,328
116,373
134,439
111,970
163,480
121,177
C4-alkylbenzenes
42,786
28,971
61,377
42,469
22,505
14,245
0
0
0
0
0
0
2-Ethylphenol
5,948
4,575
6,515
5,298
5,329
3,786
2,3-Dimethylphenol
7,749
6,068
7,969
6,584
7,509
5,504
Naphthalene †
92,300
76,911
83,124
75,044
102,310
78,947
2-Methylnaphthalene
16,167
12,566
17,788
14,619
14,398
10,327
1-Methylnaphthalene
10,446
8,625
10,770
9,322
10,092
7,865
Biphenyl
7,340
6,043
7,332
6,408
7,349
5,646
Tetradecane
14,066
11,449
12,659
11,057
15,602
11,875
7,225
5,433
8,793
7,143
5,515
3,568
Acenaphthylene †
17,432
14,950
16,577
15,233
18,365
14,643
0
0
0
0
0
0
541
423
215
146
896
725
Dibenzofuran
11,553
9,348
11,317
9,775
11,810
8,882
2,333
1,545
1,854
1,358
2,855
1,748
Fluorene †
5,520
4,433
5,053
4,379
6,030
4,492
Heptadecane
0
0
0
0
0
0
Octadecane
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,323
13,556
15,219
13,378
17,528
13,751
Undecane
Pentadecane
Acenaphthene †
Phenanthrene †
(Continued)
50
Table 3-14
(Continued)
Catalytic
Average
Average
Average
Emission Rate
Emission
Emission Rate
4 Stoves
Factor
4 Stoves
11 Runs
4 Stoves
12 Runs
12 Runs
µg/hr
µ
µg/hr
µ
µg/kg (Dry)
µ
Catalytic
Average
Emission
Factor
4 Stoves
11 Runs
(Dry)
µg/kg
µ
All Stoves
Average
Emission Rate
8 Stoves
23 Runs
µ
µg/hr
All Stoves
Average
Emission
Factor
8 Stoves
23 Runs
(Dry)
µg/kg
µ
3,201
2,563
2,903
2,494
3,526
2,639
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fluoranthene †
5,752
4,693
5,530
4,904
5,993
4,463
Pyrene †
5,230
4,321
5,159
4,602
5,307
4,015
599
480
553
438
648
525
Chrysene*†
659
520
606
465
717
580
839
677
999
805
665
536
166
136
168
138
165
133
Benzo(a)pyrene*†
384
335
395
367
373
300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7-PAH
2,648
2,148
2,722
2,214
2,567
2,075
16-PAH
148,946
123,998
136,501
122,393
162,523
125,750
Anthracene †
Carbazole
* 7-PAH
† 16-PAH
51
Table 3-15
Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates for Overall Study
Catalytic
Average
Average
Average
Emission Rate
Emission
Emission Rate
5 Stoves
Factor
11 Stoves
13 Runs
11 Stoves
30 Runs
30 Runs
µg/hr
µg/hr
µ
µ
(Dry)
µg/kg
µ
Catalytic
Average
Emission
Factor
5 Stoves
13 Runs
(Dry)
µg/kg
µ
All Stoves
Average
Emission Rate
16 Stoves
43 Runs
µg/hr
µ
All Stoves
Average
Emission
Factor
16 Stoves
43 Runs
µg/kg (Dry)
µ
Toluene
160,559
143,891
149,816
137,773
225,828
204,213
m,p-Xylene
35,946
31,106
32,848
28,640
59,796
54,598
o-Xylene
12,355
10,713
11,112
9,807
21,389
19,347
Phenol
229,593
198,901
203,796
184,343
295,530
254,625
Benzofuran
48,128
42,018
45,222
40,317
63,200
56,177
C3-alkylbenzenes
39,262
34,276
38,200
33,901
74,205
68,127
Decane
82
60
91
67
0
0
o-Cresol
73,466
62,769
65,150
56,930
119,622
106,882
m,p-Cresol
114,435
98,945
101,231
90,381
178,342
158,610
C4-alkylbenzenes
102,030
92,595
91,413
79,545
271,102
263,422
0
0
0
0
0
0
2-Ethylphenol
4,468
3,796
4,530
3,928
6,148
5,471
2,3-Dimethylphenol
6,360
5,553
6,120
5,445
9,388
8,566
Naphthalene †
87,096
78,939
82,445
77,907
92,666
80,849
2-Methylnaphthalene
14,990
13,165
14,664
13,071
24,332
22,123
1-Methylnaphthalene
10,593
9,673
10,237
9,506
15,079
13,933
Biphenyl
6,816
6,151
6,544
6,064
9,227
8,378
Tetradecane
13,754
12,426
12,364
11,544
20,689
18,818
9,525
8,626
9,105
8,296
19,507
18,360
Acenaphthylene †
19,251
18,055
18,736
18,130
20,500
18,495
0
0
0
0
0
0
879
821
618
587
1,933
1,834
Dibenzofuran
10,544
9,435
9,972
9,189
14,760
13,338
4,243
3,939
4,345
4,198
1,428
874
Fluorene †
5,766
5,241
5,378
5,067
7,404
6,594
Heptadecane
0
0
0
0
0
0
Octadecane
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,262
20,011
20,653
19,895
22,378
20,345
Undecane
Pentadecane
Acenaphthene †
Phenanthrene †
(Continued)
52
Table 3-15
(Continued)
Catalytic
Average
Average
Average
Emission Rate
Emission
Emission Rate
5 Stoves
Factor
11 Stoves
13 Runs
11 Stoves
30 Runs
30 Runs
µg/hr
µ
µg/hr
µ
(Dry)
µg/kg
µ
Catalytic
Average
Emission
Factor
5 Stoves
13 Runs
(Dry)
µg/kg
µ
All Stoves
Average
Emission Rate
16 Stoves
43 Runs
µ
µg/hr
All Stoves
Average
Emission
Factor
16 Stoves
43 Runs
µg/kg (Dry)
µ
3,924
3,654
3,717
3,572
4,609
4,117
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fluoranthene †
7,468
7,016
7,443
7,218
6,818
6,025
Pyrene †
5,856
5,465
5,847
5,639
5,661
5,010
1,095
1,052
1,119
1,080
701
631
Chrysene*†
1,199
1,152
1,219
1,175
807
729
908
852
987
918
835
774
154
144
155
146
158
138
Benzo(a)pyrene*†
408
398
418
421
367
320
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7-PAH
3,765
3,598
3,897
3,739
2,868
2,592
16-PAH
155,267
142,799
148,735
141,754
164,835
145,861
Anthracene †
Carbazole
* 7-PAH
† 16-PAH
53
Table 3-16
Comparison of POM Emission Factors for Stoves in Current Study
to AP-42 POM Emission Factors
Catalytic Stoves
Conventional Stoves
PAH Compound
Current
Study
g/kg
(Dry)
AP-42
g/kg (Dry)
Current
Study
g/kg (Dry)
AP-42
g/kg (Dry)
Current
Study
g/kg (Dry)
AP-42
g/kg (Dry)
Acenaphthene
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.005
nd
0.005
Acenaphthylene
0.018
0.034
0.018
0.016
nd
0.106
Anthracene
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
nd
0.007
Benzo(a)anthracene*
0.001
0.012
0.001
<0.001
nd
0.010
Benzo(a)pyrene*
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.003
nd
0.002
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
nd
0.003
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.010
nd
0.002
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*
0.000
0.001
0.000
<0.001
nd
0.001
Chrysene*
0.001
0.005
0.001
0.005
nd
0.006
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene*
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.002
nd
0.000
Fluoranthene
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.004
nd
0.010
Fluorene
0.007
0.007
0.005
0.007
nd
0.012
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene*
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.010
nd
0.000
Naphthalene
0.081
0.093
0.078
0.072
nd
0.144
Phenanthrene
0.020
0.024
0.020
0.059
nd
0.039
Pyrene
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.004
nd
0.012
7-PAH Total
0.003
0.025
0.003
0.024
nd
0.022
16-PAH Total
0.146
0.202
0.142
0.205
nd
0.359
nd – No Data
* 7-PAH Subset Compounds
54
average 7-PAH and 16-PAH emission factors for a total of 16 older phase 2 certified stoves
tested for a total of approximately 43 weeks under actual in-home usage were lower than
corresponding AP-42 values. This suggests that estimates of national emissions of 7-PAH and
16-PAH from woodstoves are too high and new emission factors for AP-42 should be developed.
55
Section 4.0
Conclusions
Out of the 16 stoves inspected all showed the effects of use. However, only six were
degraded to the point that it was speculated that their condition would significantly affect air
emissions. Routine maintenance or minor repairs could have kept all units in good operating
condition if they had been done.
An extensive data base was developed from the 43 week-long test runs on 16 homes in
the two cities of Klamath Falls and Portland. No direct statistical correlation between emissions
and wood moisture, burn rate or stove condition could be made due to the number of variables
associated with real-world in-home use of woodstoves.
The particulate emissions for stoves in Portland homes were on the average higher than
for stoves in Klamath Falls homes. This result is consistent with the average higher fuel
moisture content and burn rate characteristics of the Portland portion of the study as compared
with the Klamath Falls portion of the study.
The particulate emission factors of the certified phase 2 stoves evaluated in this study
appear to have become higher with use, but after about seven years, on the average, they still
have lower emissions than uncertified conventional stoves.
The emission rates for phase 2 stove models reported as part of the NSPS certification
process do not represent emission levels of the same stove models in-homes after extended use.
Particulate emissions can not be used as a surrogate measure of POM emissions for
woodstoves. POM emission factors, as based on the 7-PAH and 16-PAH surrogates, determined
from the in-home use of woodstoves in this study, were lower than the POM emission factors
tabulated in AP-42.
56
Section 5.0
Acknowledgments
The participation of the following people is acknowledged:
Members of the volunteer homes.
Project Officer Robert McCrillis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Jared Sorenson of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for locating volunteer homes,
field sampling, and project coordination and implementation.
Richard Sparwasser of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for field work coordination.
Bruce Davis and Francesca Volland of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for
laboratory analysis and sampling support.
Andrew Scott of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for laboratory analysis and editing
assistance.
David McClure of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for project quality control/quality
assurance and manuscript reviewing.
Pam Blackburn of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for administrative support.
James Gillam of Ash Brothers Chimney Sweep for his involvement in locating homes in
Klamath Falls, Oregon, and replacing flue pipes of the test stoves.
57
Section 6.0
References
1.
Birnbaum, R., 1998, National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1997,
EPA-454/R-98-016, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, 1990 Emissions Inventory of Forty
Section 112(k) Pollutants, Interim Final Report, Docket A-97-44, II-A-01.
3.
Houck, J.E. and Tiegs, P.E., 1998, Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review,
Volume 1. Technical Report, EPA-600/R-98-174a (NTIS PB99-122111), U.S. EPA,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources; New Residential Wood Heaters, Federal Register, Vol. 53,
No. 38, February 26, 1988, pp. 5860-5926.
5.
Bighouse, R.D., Barnett, S. G., Houck, J.E. and Tiegs, P.E., 1994, Woodstove Durability
Testing Protocol, EPA-600/R-94-193 (NTIS PB95-136164), U.S. EPA, Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
6.
Bighouse, R.D., Houck, J.E., Barnett, S.G. and McCrillis, R.C., 1993, Stress Testing of
Woodstoves, paper 93-RP-136.05, Air and Waste Management Association 86th Annual
Meeting, Denver, CO, June 14-18, 1993.
7.
Barnett, S.G. and Fesperman, J., 1990, Field Performance of Advanced Technology
Woodstoves in Their Second Season of Use in Glens Falls, New York, 1990; report
prepared by OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. for Canada Centre for Minerals and
Energy Technology; Energy, Mines, and Resources.
8.
Barnett, S.G. and Bighouse, R.D., 1992, In-home Demonstration of the Reduction of
Woodstove Emissions from the Use of Densified Logs, OMNI Environmental Services,
Inc. report to Bonneville Power Administration, DOE/BP-35836-1.
58
9.
Champion, M. and Jaasma, D.R., 1998, Degradation of Emissions Control Performance
of Wood Stoves in Crested Butte, CO, EPA-600/R-98-158 (NTIS PB99-127995), U.S.
EPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
10.
Davis, B., 1989, Guideline Series, Guidance Document for Residential Wood
Combustion Emission Control Measures, EPA-450/2-89-015 (NTIS PB90-130444), U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
11.
Houck, J.E., Tiegs, P.E., Crouch, J. and Keithley, C., 1998, The PM2.5 Reduction
Potential of New Technology Home Heating Appliances and Fuels, pp.1032-1043, in:
Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and U.S. Department of Energy International Speciality Conference, PM2.5: A Fine
Particle Standard, January 28-30, 1998, Long Beach CA, J. Chow and P. Koutrakis, Eds.
12.
Dernbach, S., 1990, Woodstove Field Performance in Klamath Falls, Oregon, Elements
Unlimited report to Wood Heating Alliance, Washington, DC.
13.
Barnett, S.G., 1990, In-Home Evaluation of Emission Characteristics of EPA-Certified
High Technology Non-Catalytic Woodstoves in Klamath Falls, Oregon, 1990, report
prepared by OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. for Canada Centre for Minerals and
Energy Technology; Energy, Mines, and Resources.
14.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 1,
External Combustion Sources, Section 1.10, Residential Wood Stoves (Supplement B),
October 1996, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
15.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation
Division, Washington, DC. October 21, 1999. Certified Woodstoves List. 24 pages.
Group as referenced.
16.
Burnet, P., 1987, The Northeast Cooperative Woodstove Study, Vol. 1,
EPA/600/7-87/026a (NTIS PB88-140769) U.S. EPA, Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
17.
OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., 1987, An In-situ Performance Evaluation of
Catalytic Retrofit Devices, report to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
18.
Simons, C.A., Christiansen, P.D., Pritchett, L.C. and Beyerman, G.A., 1987, Whitehorse
Efficient Woodheat Demonstration, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to The
City of Whitehorse, Yukon.
59
19.
Simons, C.A., Christiansen, P.D., Houck, J.E. and Pritchett, L.C., 1988, Woodstove
Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis and In-situ Evaluation of New
Technology Woodstoves, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to the U.S.
Department of Energy Pacific Northwest and Alaska Regional Biomass Program,
Bonneville Power Administration, Task G, DOE/BP-18508-6.
20.
OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., 1988, Particulate Emission Test, Emission Control
System Inspection and Leak Check, Blaze King Stove in Home P02, report to Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality.
21.
Simons, C.A. and Jones S.K., 1989, Performance Evaluation of the Best Existing Stove
Technology (BEST) Hybrid Woodstove and Catalytic Retrofit Device, OMNI
Environmental Services, Inc. report to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
22.
Barnett, S.G., 1990, Field Performance of Advanced Technology Woodstoves in Glens
Falls, NY, 1988-89, EPA-600/7-90-019a (NTIS PB91-125641), U.S. EPA, Air and
Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
23.
Barnett, S.G.and Roholt, R.B., 1990, In-home Performance of Certified Pellet Stoves in
Medford and Klamath Falls, Oregon, OMNI Environmental Services Inc. report to U.S.
Department of Energy and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, DOE/BP04143-1.
24.
Roholt, R.B. and Houck, J.E., 1990, Field Performance of Best Existing Technology
(BEST) Hybrid Woodstoves in Their Second Year of Use, OMNI Environmental
Services, Inc. report to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
25.
Barnett, S.G. and Fields, P.G., 1991, In-home Performance of Exempt Pellet Stoves in
Medford, Oregon, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to U.S. Department of
Energy, Oregon Department of Energy, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, DOE/BP-04123-2.
26.
Barnett, S.G., 1991, In-Home Performance: Comparison of a Conventional Fireplace with
a Retrofit Firecrest Masonry Insert in the Zagelow Residence, Vancouver, Washington,
OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Mutual Materials Company, Bellevue, WA.
27.
Barnett, S.G., 1991, In-home Evaluation of Emissions from Masonry Fireplaces and
Heaters, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Western States Clay Products
Association, San Mateo, CA.
28.
Barnett, S.G., 1992, In-home Evaluation of Emissions from a Tulikivi KTU 2100
Masonry Heater, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to The Tulikivi Group.
60
29.
Barnett, S.G., McCrillis, R.C., and Crooks, R.B., 1992, Evaluation of Emissions from
Masonry Heaters and Masonry Fireplaces in Homes, in Proceedings of the 85th Annual
Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association, Kansas City, MO, June 21-26,
1992, paper 92-118.06.
30.
Barnett, S.G., 1992, In-Home Evaluation of Emissions from a Grundofen Masonry
Heater, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Mutual Materials Company, the
Masonry Heater Association and Dietmeyer, Ward and Stroud.
31.
Barnett, S.G., 1992, In-home Evaluation of Emissions from a Biofire 4x3 Masonry
Heater, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Biofire, Inc.
32.
Barnett, S.G., 1993, Summary Report of the In-Home Emissions and Efficiency
Performance of Five Commercially Available Masonry Heaters, OMNI Environmental
Services, Inc. report to The Masonry Heater Association.
33.
Barnett, S.G., 1992, Particulate and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from a Bellfire 28
Rosin Fireplace Using a Simulated Real-World Test Procedure, OMNI Environmental
Services, Inc. report to Sleepy Hollow Chimney, Inc., Brentwood, NY.
34.
Barnett, S.G., 1992, Particulate and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from the Use of
Hazelnut Logs in a Conventional Masonry Fireplace, OMNI Environmental Services Inc.
report to Hazelnut Growers of Oregon, Cornelius, OR.
35.
Barnett, S.G., 1992, Particulate and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from the Use of Palm
Branch Logs in a Conventional Masonry Fireplace, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc.
report to Clean Burning Fuels, Inc., Tucson, AZ.
36.
Bighouse, R.D. and Houck, J.E., 1993, Evaluation of Emissions and Energy Efficiencies
of Residential Wood Combustion Devices Using Manufactured Fuels, Science
Applications International Corporation report to Oregon Department of Energy.
37.
Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University, Klamath Falls Experiment Station,
Klamath Falls, OR.
38.
National Weather Service, Portland Oregon Forecast Office web page,
http://nimbo.wrh.noaa.gov/portland.
39.
DeAngelis, D.G., Ruffin, D.S. and Reznik, R.B., 1980, Preliminary Characterization of
Emissions from Wood-fired Residential Combustion Equipment, EPA-600/7-80-040
(NTIS PB80-182066), U.S. EPA, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
61
40.
Burnet, P.G., Houck, J.E., and Roholt, R.B., 1990, Effects of Appliance Type and
Operating Variables on Woodstove Emissions, Vol 1, EPA-600/2-90-001a (NTIS
PB90-151457), U.S. EPA, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
62

Research and Development

Transcription

Similar documents

An Independent Performance Review of Six Pellet Stoves October

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies

Mont-Tremblant - NosAdresses.com

Jøtul F 400 - Jøtul stoves and fireplaces

CAN/CSA-B415.1-92 Performance Testing Of A National Standard

OxCarre Research Paper 134 Dirty Little Secrets: Inferring Fossil

Tradeshow Product Guide

Petunjuk Penulisan Makalah Seminar Nasional APTA

The Bermuda Atlantic Time

Thesis - ResearchSpace Home - University of KwaZulu